ArticleThe Laryngoscope2026
The Automated Vestibular Rehabilitation System: Normative Data From a Machine Vision-Guided Platform.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Automated Vestibular Rehabilitation System: Normative Data From a Machine Vision-Guided Platform.The Laryngoscope · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
OBJECTIVE(S): Vestibular rehabilitation therapy (VRT) is an efficient treatment for dizziness and vertigo, but its accessibility remains limited. This study evaluates the feasibility and performance of a machine vision-based automated alternative-the Automated Vestibular Rehabilitation System (AVRS)-as a more accessible approach to delivering VRT.
methodsForty age- and sex-matched adults without balance disorders or recent head injury completed one standard VRT exercise, X1, in seated and standing positions using the AVRS, which tracked real-time head and eye movements. Gain, the ratio of eye to head velocity near the neutral head position, was calculated using median values and interquartile ranges. Test-retest reliability (TRTR) was assessed in a subset of 20 participants using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) with 95% confidence intervals.
resultsAll participants successfully completed the AVRS-guided vestibular exercises. The n = 20 person test-retest reliability subset returned after 27 ± 9 days. Mean VOR gain approximated the expected physiologic norms (~-1.0) across sessions irrespective of frequency (Session 1: -0.98 ± 0.04; Session 2: -0.99 ± 0.03). Overall reliability between sessions was moderate (ICC (3, 1): 0.59 [95% CI: 0.37-0.75], p < 0.001).
conclusionThe AVRS demonstrated moderate reliability and accurate VOR gain measurement in healthy adults, supporting its potential as a scalable, accessible tool for VRT delivery, with normative data to guide therapeutic progression in clinical populations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4:
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.